-
EClinicalMedicine Sep 2020Infantile hemangioma (IH) is common in children, which may bring about cosmetically disfiguring, functional impairment, and exhibiting complications. There had been...
BACKGROUND
Infantile hemangioma (IH) is common in children, which may bring about cosmetically disfiguring, functional impairment, and exhibiting complications. There had been various therapies and we aimed to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of different therapies through network meta-analysis.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science (from database inception to April 11, 2020) for studies assessing the efficacy, success rate and adverse effects. Direct pairwise comparison and a network meta-analysis under random effects were performed. We also assessed the ranking probability.
FINDINGS
A total of 30 randomized clinical trials with more than 20 different therapeutic regimens were identified. Treatment combined propranolol orally with laser could improve the curative effect than monotherapy. Laser with topical β blockers showed more efficiency than others whether in children under 6 months or not. The long-pulsed dye laser might be the best laser therapy. A higher dose and a longer treatment duration of propranolol orally achieved a higher success rate and increased side effects. Plus pulse dye laser with propranolol had the lowest incidence of adverse reactions, such as ulcer, color sink and color reduction.
INTERPRETATION
A combination of β blockers and laser might be the first-line treatment of IHs and a longer pulsed dye laser is preferred.
FUNDING
No funding was received.
PubMed: 33089121
DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2020.100506 -
Kidney Medicine May 2022There is conflicting evidence regarding the type of β-blockers to use in dialysis patients. This systematic review seeks to determine whether highly dialyzable...
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE
There is conflicting evidence regarding the type of β-blockers to use in dialysis patients. This systematic review seeks to determine whether highly dialyzable β-blockers are associated with higher rates of cardiovascular events and mortality in hemodialysis patients than poorly dialyzable β-blockers.
STUDY DESIGN
A systematic review of the existing literature was conducted. A meta-analysis was performed using data from the selected studies.
SETTING & STUDY POPULATIONS
Participants were from the United States, Canada, and Taiwan. The mean ages of participants ranged from 55.9-75.7 years.
SELECTION CRITERIA FOR STUDIES
We searched the Ovid MEDLINE database from 1990 to September 2020. Studies without adult hemodialysis participants and without comparisons of at least 2 β-blockers of different dialyzability were excluded.
DATA EXTRACTION
Baseline and adjusted outcome data were extracted from each study.
ANALYTICAL APPROACH
Random-effects models were used to calculate pooled risk ratios using fully adjusted models from individual studies.
RESULTS
Four cohort studies were included. Pooling fully adjusted models, highly dialyzable β-blockers did not influence mortality (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.81-1.08; I = 0.84) compared with poorly dialyzable β-blockers but were associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events (HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.83-0.93). There was significant heterogeneity between studies (I = 0.35). Only 1 study reported on adverse events. Intradialytic hypotension was more common in those on carvedilol (a poorly dialyzable β-blocker) compared with those on metoprolol (a highly dialyzable β-blocker; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.11).
LIMITATIONS
No randomized controlled trials were identified. Each study used different analytic methods and different definitions for outcomes. Classifications of β-blockers varied. Only 1 study reported on adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Pooled data suggest highly dialyzable β-blockers are associated with similar mortality events and fewer cardiovascular events compared with poorly dialyzable β-blockers.
PubMed: 35539430
DOI: 10.1016/j.xkme.2022.100460 -
International Journal of Health Sciences 2019Uncontrolled hypertension is a main predisposing risk factor leading to chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). Although several treatment methods for patients with HTN and AF... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
Uncontrolled hypertension is a main predisposing risk factor leading to chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). Although several treatment methods for patients with HTN and AF were developed in past decades, further investigations of their efficacies are needed. This systematic narrative review presents an overview of studies reporting treatment efficacies in patients with HTN and/or AF.
METHODS
A narrative-based systematic review was performed using EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library searching for relevant papers published between October 2008 and October 2018. Out of 4481 studies, only 15 studies could be included following the inclusion criteria.
RESULTS
Included studies reported treatment measures, measured outcomes, and efficacies in adult patients with HTN and AF with defined interventions and methodologies. Treatment methods with effective outcomes were administration of hydrochlorothiazide, losartan or atenolol, telmisartan or amlodipine, or general anti-hypertensive drugs. Treatment methods that showed the most effective outcomes (lowering AF recurrence and improving BP control) were those containing pulmonary vein (or antrum) isolation (PVI/PVAI) (6 studies) and/or in conjunction with renal denervation (RDN)(6 studies). Treatment methods showing the most effective outcomes were PVI/PVAI in conjunction with RDN.
CONCLUSION
The latest evidence shows that PVI (in conjunction with RDN in some instances) was more efficacious among patients suffering from HTN and/or AF.
PubMed: 31745397
DOI: No ID Found -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Mar 2021Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of mortality worldwide, and systemic arterial hypertension is associated with a large number of these cases. The objective of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Cardiovascular diseases are the main cause of mortality worldwide, and systemic arterial hypertension is associated with a large number of these cases. The objective of health professionals and health policies should be searching for the best therapeutics to control this disease. A recent consensus indicated that β-blockers have recently lost their place in initial indications for the treatment of systemic arterial hypertension and are now more indicated for the treatment of hypertension in association with other clinical situations such as angina, heart failure and arrhythmia; however, it is known that this approach was based on studies that evaluated older β-blockers such as atenolol.
OBJECTIVE
The main objective of this study was to perform a systematic review with subsequent meta-analysis on the use of nebivolol for hypertensive disease treatment, comparing it with drugs of the main antihypertensive classes.
METHODS
This systematic review was based on a search of the MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Scopus, Cochrane, International Pharmaceuticals Abstracts (IPA), and Lilacs databases for randomized and double-blind clinical trials. In addition, we also searched for gray literature studies, to 31 July 2015. Next, a cumulative meta-analysis was performed, with studies being added in a sequential manner, evaluating their impact on the combined effect. For this project, we only meta-analyzed direct comparisons of random effect.
RESULTS
Overall, 981 clinical trials were included in this systematic review. After careful analysis, 34 randomized and double-blind clinical trials were included to investigate the efficacy of nebivolol on systolic (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) control and adverse effects. The study population comprised 12,465 patients with systemic arterial hypertension (SAH) aged between 18 and 85 years; 17% of subjects were of Black ethnicity, approximately 55% were men, and almost 10% had diabetes. In SBP management, nebivolol was superior to other β-blockers and diuretics and showed no difference in efficacy when compared with angiotensin receptor blockers or calcium channel blockers. There were insufficient studies on angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors for adequate comparison of both SBP and DBP control. For DBP control, nebivolol was more efficient than other β-blockers, angiotensin receptor blockers, diuretics, and calcium channel blockers.
DISCUSSION
Nebivolol is a third-generation β-blocker with additional capabilities to improve blood pressure levels in patients with arterial hypertension, because it acts by additional mechanisms such as endothelium-dependent vasodilation associated with L-arginine and oxide nitric acid, nitric oxide activity on smooth muscle cells, decreasing platelet aggregation, and leukocyte adhesion in the endothelium, decreasing oxidative stress. Although nebivolol has shown good results in controlling hypertension in this study (with few adverse events when compared with placebo treatment) and has an unquestionable benefit in individuals with heart failure (mainly with reduced ejection fraction), there is a lack of studies proving the benefit of this drug for controlling hypertension and reducing clinical outcomes such as cardiovascular (or general) mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or stroke.
CONCLUSIONS
Nebivolol demonstrated at least similar control of blood pressure levels in hypertensive individuals when compared with drugs of the most used classes. In addition, in relation to the control of arterial hypertension, studies with clinical outcomes should be performed to ensure the use of this drug in detriment to others with these well-established results.
Topics: Adolescent; Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Adult; Age Factors; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors; Antihypertensive Agents; Calcium Channel Blockers; Diabetes Mellitus; Diuretics; Double-Blind Method; Drug Therapy, Combination; Female; Humans; Hypertension; Male; Middle Aged; Multicenter Studies as Topic; Nebivolol; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sex Factors; Socioeconomic Factors; Young Adult
PubMed: 32710438
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-020-00422-0 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.The evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).We downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Anesthesia, General; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cause of Death; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Surgical Procedures, Operative
PubMed: 31556094
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013438 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2019Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and...
BACKGROUND
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update and assesses the evidence in cardiac surgery only.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 63 studies with 7768 participants; six studies were quasi-randomized and the remaining were RCTs. All participants were undergoing cardiac surgery, and in most studies, at least some of the participants were previously taking beta-blockers. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, sotalol, esmolol, landiolol, acebutolol, timolol, carvedilol, nadolol, and atenolol. In twelve studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in nine studies this was before surgery, in 20 studies during surgery, and in the remaining studies beta-blockers were started postoperatively. Overall, we found that most studies did not report sufficient details for us to adequately assess risk of bias. In particular, few studies reported methods used to randomize participants to groups. In some studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period, and all studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. No studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. We judged 68% studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.Study authors reported few deaths (7 per 1000 in both the intervention and control groups), and we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.90; 29 studies, 4099 participants). For myocardial infarctions, we found no evidence of a difference in events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.52; 25 studies, 3946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Few study authors reported cerebrovascular events, and the evidence was uncertain (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.67; 5 studies, 1471 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on a control risk of 54 per 1000, we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce episodes of ventricular arrhythmias by 32 episodes per 1000 (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63; 12 studies, 2296 participants). For atrial fibrillation or flutter, there may be 163 fewer incidences with beta-blockers, based on a control risk of 327 incidences per 1000 (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 40 studies, 5650 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence for bradycardia and hypotension was less certain. We found that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to bradycardia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.91; 12 studies, 1640 participants; low-certainty evidence), or hypotension (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.80; 10 studies, 1538 participants; low-certainty evidence).We used GRADE to downgrade the certainty of evidence. Owing to studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain, we downgraded each outcome for study limitations. Based on effect size calculations in the previous review, we found an insufficient number of participants in all outcomes (except atrial fibrillation) and, for some outcomes, we noted a wide confidence interval; therefore, we also downgraded outcomes owing to imprecision. The evidence for atrial fibrillation and length of hospital stay had a moderate level of statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain, and we, therefore, downgraded these outcomes for inconsistency.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found no evidence of a difference in early all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, hypotension and bradycardia. However, there may be a reduction in atrial fibrillation and ventricular arrhythmias when beta-blockers are used. A larger sample size is likely to increase the certainty of this evidence. Four studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review.
Topics: Adrenergic beta-Antagonists; Arrhythmias, Cardiac; Bradycardia; Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Cerebrovascular Disorders; Humans; Hypotension; Morbidity; Myocardial Infarction; Myocardial Ischemia; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31544227
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013435 -
American Journal of Cardiovascular... Oct 2020Obesity hypertension is an ongoing pandemic. The first-line medications to treat this condition are still subject to debate. We compared diuretics, calcium-channel... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Obesity hypertension is an ongoing pandemic. The first-line medications to treat this condition are still subject to debate. We compared diuretics, calcium-channel blockers (CCB), beta-blockers (BB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) as an initial antihypertensive therapy for prevention of cardiovascular morbimortality of hypertensive individuals who are overweight or obese.
METHODS
We conducted a search of the literature for randomized clinical trials in which at least 50% of the participants were overweight or obese. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, acute myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF), stroke, or end-stage renal disease.
RESULTS
Our search yielded 16 randomized studies. Comparisons of two classes of drugs with at least two studies indicated that (1) CCB and ACEI increased the risk of HF [relative risk (RR) = 2.26; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-4.40] and stroke [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.13; 1.00-1.26]), respectively, compared to diuretics; and (2) CCB showed a reduction in stroke (HR = 0.77; 0.66-0.89) and total mortality (HR = 0.94; 0.87-1.01) compared to the BB atenolol. Comparisons of two classes of antihypertensive medications with only one study showed that the risk of MI was higher with ARB valsartan versus CCB (HR = 1.19; 95% CI 1.02-1.38, p = 0.02). In contrast, losartan lowered the risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome compared to atenolol (HR = 0.87; 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p = 0.02).
CONCLUSIONS
In hypertensive subjects with excess weight, diuretics are more effective for preventing HF and stroke than CCB and ACEI, respectively. CCB are a good first-line choice for prevention of cardiovascular disease, except HF.
Topics: Antihypertensive Agents; Cardiometabolic Risk Factors; Cardiovascular Diseases; Humans; Hypertension; Obesity; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31898196
DOI: 10.1007/s40256-019-00393-x